Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more rileyteige's comments login

> average cost per month of ownership

Speaking strictly to that, I cannot agree more. This is exactly how I look at purchases, especially larger ones. I'm sure many others think the same way.


Probably the first time this occurred to me was when I bought my first wireless headphones (bose qc35, FWIW). It hit me like a ton of bricks that I wasn't buying them, I was renting them:

* They will not last forever. Batteries die, wireless specifications change; some day I may buy a phone that uses GreenTooth instead of BlueTooth.

* In the event that I like this new (to me) product category (I had never owned noise-cancelling headphones before), I will always want to own such a thing, that does what this does, and is compatible with my device.

Because it has a limited lifespan, and the product may be something i want to continue to own for the rest of my foreseeable life, I am now signing up to pay a certain amount for life to own such a thing!


I always find the monthly cost hits me hard. Its weird to think that buying something is going to cost me $20/month when I would instantly reject subscribing to a $20/month service normally.


As a poor person this is so valuable.

Cheap boots are more expensive....


Are they really though?

On the topic of boots, let's say we're talking about high-cut hiking boots. I'm not an avid hiker. I do casual hiking sometimes so I just wear regular shoes to those. When I do slightly more strenuous hiking, I wear a specific pair of high-cut hiking boots that I own. I get a chance to do this maybe once a year, or less.

I bought a pair of Denali ones from Big5 for $40 for this purpose. It has been with me for 10 years now with barely any wear. If I don't use it often enough, it makes almost no difference to me to get a $400 "more durable" pair. The $40 pair is not going to get worn out in another 20-30 years at least. I probably won't go through more than say 2 pairs of these in my lifetime.

Is that an uncommon example? Maybe, but I'm not sure it's as uncommon as one would think. How about a travel backpack? I used to travel multiple times a year. Now that I have a young kid, I don't anymore. I go with a $20 backpack that I've used for a number of years that is still in decent enough condition to keep using. I'm probably not going to get much use out of it for the next 10 years before my kid is old enough to travel around the world with me.

How about a cast iron pan? They aren't dishwasher safe, and as a parent, I save time whenever I can. I don't own a cast iron pan, but even if I do, 99% of the time I'll pick up one of these non-stick sauce pans I bought from Costco as a set for a decent price of good quality that is dishwasher safe, when cooking. I've only owned these for a year but based on my experience with past sauce pans, one usually last me a good ~10 years, and that's with very regular home cooking. The iron handle skillet on this site costs $180. The set I got from Costco costs about that much, for a set of 4 pots and 4 pans.

Overall, I'm not sure I buy this entire idea of "buy expensive durable things because it'll cost less in the long run". That just hasn't been my experience in most cases, other than some very specific examples.


I think part of the problem is that price doesn't dictate quality. It can be an indicator, but it's no guarantee.

And for occasional-use things, higher quality doesn't help as much, as you've seen.

Finally, having an item that fits you well can be better than an item that'll last longer. 10x so for occasional-use items.

For instance, I had a spatula that I loved. I have never found an better one, and every spatula that I've owned since then has been quite inferior. I bought that spatula at Walmart on impulse for just a few dollars. Someone broke it, and I've been searching for a replacement for it for years.


Bingo. If price was a good enough indicator for quality there would be no need for OP‘s website.


The "boots" analogy comes from a time when boots were a daily-wear item. You're right -- for infrequently used items, daily cost of ownership isn't as relevant of a metric. For for something you actually use daily or almost-daily (laptop, headphones, shoes, cars, etc) it makes sense.


FWIW, that particular cast iron pan seems to have some sort of ceramic coating, which.. makes it more nonstick or easier to clean, or something? I'm not sure. If you don't care about that, go for the $20 lodge cast iron pan, which will also last a lifetime.

But I agree with sibling comments, you don't need to buy quality for the stuff you rarely use. And/or, you may be able to not buy it at all. A high quality set of basic knives (chef+paring+serrated) and the acquired skill to use them can replace many kitchen gizmos.


The Samuel Vimes Boots theory of socioeconomic unfairness.


Off the top of my head:

- It could be in the interest of a government to make sure people aren't spreading what they would consider disinformation

- It is then in the government's interest to prevent the spread of disinformation, perhaps to identify those spreading it or those who may be inclined to spread it

- It's not a stretch then to consider that it could be in the interest of government, particularly one with malicious or authoritarian intent, to tap into private conversations of people suspected of spreading disinformation.

I find it particularly concerning, because I assume that what people within a society would consider disinformation is 1) inconsistent, 2) ephemeral.


That's interesting, your peer commenters have observed almost the opposite thing.

You note that government may want to target individuals to prevent the spread of misinformation more effectively.

The others note that misinformation spreaders may want to target inviduals to spread misinformation more effectively.

Sounds like individual-targeting is a weapon for both sides.


Anecdotally where I live several OB/GYNs (my wife is a resident) have told me they will be delivering a ton of babies over this upcoming winter, and that they are busier than ever - with obstetric cases.

Also anecdotally, we're expecting our first - we were waiting for the right time, had it all planned out.. then COVID pulled the rug out from under everything so we said screw it and just went for it. I suspect we're not alone in this...


> screw it

heh heh heh you sure did. congrats on becoming a parent soon!


There are many out there for whom it may not be worth it.


A big part of what makes DDG great for me is that they are NOT owned by a mega corp.



Not necessarily. A "forced off-airport landing" could also be the result of an engine failure beyond gliding distance of an airport. Or engine fire, medical emergency in remote area, etc. There are many emergencies that could force an aircraft to the ground, off-field.

Not all off-field landings result in an accident, or "crash".

From our own regulations, NTSB 830 "NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING OF AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS..." https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/830.2

>Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. For purposes of this part, the definition of “aircraft accident” includes “unmanned aircraft accident,” as defined herein.

So while some off-field landings could be classified as an accident, that would only be the case if the off-field landing met the above definition.


I think it would be rather hard to land a plane off the airport without substantial damage, especially when talking about larger ones.


For small 4-6 seater general aviation aircraft it's hard (relative to a normal landing), but not at all unheard of. A modern 4 lane highway is more than wide enough, and very probably has a long enough straight section within range, to make for a relatively uneventful landing if you can get traffic to cooperate.

You're absolutely correct though when it comes to larger aircraft. I rather doubt there are any examples of an off airport landing of a 737 without significant damage to the aircraft.


> I rather doubt there are any examples of an off airport landing of a 737 without significant damage to the aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TACA_Flight_110


Well, I stand corrected. That's both surprising and an incredible feat of airmanship by the pilots!

Since I love reading about these kinds of incidents and the best way to solve a problem is to claim it's impossible, I amend my claim to "I rather doubt there are two examples of an off airport landing of a 737 without significant damage to the aircraft." :)


The famous Gimli Glider wasn't badly damaged either, although it was a 767!


Looks like they had about 5000ft to work with. Not great, but not bad either.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/30%C2%B001'52.7%22N+89%C2%...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TACA_Flight_110 made a dead-stick landing on a grass levee with minor damage - it was later flown out (following an engine change which caused the landing in the first place)


For other confused readers:

A deadstick landing,is a type of forced landing when an aircraft loses all of its propulsive power and is forced to land. The "stick" does not refer to the flight controls, but to the traditional wooden propeller, which without power would just be a "dead stick".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadstick_landing


Indeed, but planes are quite repairable. I don't have a source for this (too lazy to look), but I briefly worked for boeing on a government contract to service C-17 aircraft for the air force. There was a story there of a C-17 landing on a dirt/sand field somewhere in the middle east (this is normal there) except in this case there was a small concrete barrier out in the middle of the field that wasn't seen. The front nose gear impacted the barrier and it torn the nose gear off along with a large chunk of the underside of the fuselage. As the front of the plane touched the ground, the hole scooped up sand and blasted a ton of it into the cargo bay. A crew was flown out there and they "fixed" it and it was flown back to the states.

Another popular instance was the Lockheed EP-3 flying the China coast in 2001 before impacting a Chinese fighter in the air and making a forced "rough" landing. It was taken apart and shipped back to the states where it was repaired in Waco Texas and continues to patrol the China coast to this day.


> planes are quite repairable

The Qantas A380 from Singapore to Sidney that had an uncontained engine failure was repaired and entered service again, at an estimated cost of about $150m, or about 1/3 of the price of a new one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32


I was thinking that too, but ditching a plane into water doesn't really count as a crash. Not sure it counts as a "landing" either, but hey...


> They have a wizzo in every situation

What do you mean here by "wizzo"?


Weapons system officer. F-15E is a two seat cockpit so you have someone dedicated to the weapons systems and someone dedicated to flying the aircraft at all times. I generally share the above commenter’s enthusiasm for the F-15 over the modern “replacements”.


Not sure what IDE/editors you use.. but a quick search in VS Code's extensions revealed one named "Cloak" that might protect you to your satisfaction?


+1 for Keepass2Android.. my setup:

- Keepass db, stored in google drive with a memorized master passphrase - this brings password sync out-of-the-box

- G-Drive pulled down on all my PCs/laptops, with KeepassX used as the client

- Keepass2Android's G-Drive integration used on my phone - now made even more convenient with their "Quick Unlock" feature.

I've gone so far as to keep a separate db for payment info, though that one has a keyfile that I manage offline with a randomly-generated password, the password being stored in my password db.

I have found this setup very convenient over the years, and it offers peace of mind in knowing I'm not beholden to any online third parties to store this sensitive info.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: